Tech —

Hands-on with the Qualcomm Toq smartwatch

Ars received a review copy of the Qualcomm Toq smartwatch today, and after a couple hours of use, I've formed some first impressions. A full review will come in a few days, but so far the Toq hasn't changed my general opinion about smart watches: they're still not awesome.

The Toq arrived in a well-designed bundle of packaging, inside of which was the watch itself, the wireless charging base (which also has room for a pair of wireless earbuds, but Qualcomm didn't provide them), a micro-USB cable for the base, some instruction pamphlets, and a plastic baggie containing three tiny watchband spring-bars.

Those spring-bars were the first sign of trouble: rather than using a normal adjustable watch strap, the Toq's strap must be cut to size. The procedure for this is explained in one of the included pamphlets—you wrap the thing around your wrist, figure out where you want the strap to be, then get some scissors and cut it. Then you slide one of the spring-bars through the nearest hole in the side of the strap and attach it to the metal wrist bracket, closing the loop. After this, the watch can be worn normally.

I was a little taken aback by this design decision. I usually try not to irreversibly damage review hardware, but I didn't really have a choice here—there's no way to fasten the watch around your wrist without cutting the band to size. Plus, the band contains electronics—the home screen and front light are controlled by tapping the band, and replacing it with an off-the-shelf band is impossible. So... snip snip.

Around the wrist, the Toq's 3.2 ounce weight feels quite light—everyday watch-wearers won't notice anything different between this and a medium-weight chronometer. The 1.55-inch display is visible from normal watch-viewing distances and angles without any issues.

The Toq in its box, next to its wireless charging base.

Lee Hutchinson

The Toq's wireless charger. The watch goes on the left, and the wireless earbuds (which we did not receive) go on the right.

Lee Hutchinson

The Toq, posed dramatically on its base.

Lee Hutchinson

Side view of the Toq. The three-element clasp is open in this picture. In an oddly puzzling design decision, the Toq's band is not adjustable—it must be cut to size, and once it's cut, you're stuck with it.

Lee Hutchinson

The Toq and its base from the other side.

Lee Hutchinson

When charging, the Toq sits on its side in the little recess on the left half of the base. A brace folds up from the base to keep the watch in place.

Lee Hutchinson

The Toq on my wrist.

Lee Hutchinson

Unlike some other smartwatches, the Toq displays useful details about incoming messages.

Lee Hutchinson

100mm macro shot of the Toq's Mirasol screen. The crosshatching shown is the capacitive touch sensitive layer; beneath it are the Mirasol display elements.

Lee Hutchinson

That display deserves some amount of discussion—which will come in our full review. Rather than employing E Ink or a standard backlit LCD-based screen, the Toq uses a Mirasol interferometric modulator display—a proprietary Qualcomm invention made up of microscopic mirror-like elements. The Mirasol display isn't backlit, so it's quite visible outdoors in sunlight, but in dim indoor conditions it needs additional illumination to be seen. The device comes with an integrated front light for this purpose—just like an old digital watch. The Mirasol technology makes for a display that isn't terribly sharp, but it's not awful. Qualcomm is aware that the display's fuzziness will be an issue for some and promises that Mirasol displays will continue to evolve.

Smartwatches are mostly non-functional without an attached smartphone, and here the Toq fails a major usability test: it is currently only compatible with Android devices. This is a step up from Samsung's Galaxy Gear, which only works with one Android device, but it shuts out the iOS and Windows Phone-using crowd.

If you have an Android device handy, though, the Toq functions perfectly well. In order to use the watch, you need to install the Toq app from the Google Play Store; after that, it pairs via Bluetooth with your Android device and uses that device's networking capabilities to do Internet-y stuff. As soon as I connected the Toq to a spare Nexus 4, it immediately signaled that it needed to install an update, which required a reboot and took maybe 60-70 seconds.

Actually using the Toq proved to be an inconsistent experience. Prior to installing the initial update, the display was extremely slow to respond to touch and would only draw perhaps 5 updates per second—in other words, it was terrible. After the update, though, the refresh rate got a lot better and the device actually became usable. However, touch response still remained a nagging issue—I find that I have to re-try at least one out of every 4-5 taps or slides on the device's face.

One welcome change from the Galaxy Gear, at least, is that the Toq displays entire e-mail messages on its screen rather than simply prompting you to look at your phone. This absurdity negated a lot of the reason you might want to own a smartwatch in the first place—having your smartwatch tell you to look at your phone is insane and stupid. Thankfully, the Toq didn't do this with the Gmail account I tested—it showed the e-mail's sender, subject, and body, and it allowed me to scroll through the message.

We'll have a lot more about the Toq in our full review, which will likely go up early next week. If you have anything in particular you'd like us to pay attention to and test out, please let us know in the comments below.

Listing image by Lee Hutchinson

Lee Hutchinson
Lee is the Senior Technology Editor at Ars and oversees gadget, automotive, IT, and culture content. He also knows stuff about enterprise storage, security, and manned space flight. Lee is based in Houston, TX. Emaillee.hutchinson@arstechnica.com//Twitter@Lee_Ars

Cutting the band to size... and the band contains electronics so is essentially non-replaceable? What if I gain weight? What if I buy a new one next year and want to sell this one to someone with a bigger wrist? What if I simply decided I made it a little too tight, and want it slightly looser? This just seems like a pretty big fail.

here the Toq fails a major usability test: it is currently only compatible with Android devices.

I'm left speechless at that conclusion. Seriously.

Apple software developers and hardware and accessory makers left/leave other platforms hanging all the time. But now it's a usability problem?

Question related to this...

How easy/hard would it be to make something like this work with iOS? Does a watch like this use standard Bluetooth messaging protocols that Apple supports? Or does it need software installed on the smartphone side? If the latter, then I can see how it would difficult (maybe even impossible) to support iOS with something like this.

I have to ask, who is really asking for smartwatches? It seems like this whole thing is a drop of fake blood into the consumer electronics' shark tank. Samsung came out waving their flag, yelling FIRST!, but nobody really seemed to care. Now there's a half-assed, ugly-displayed, mostly-responsive....wrist thing, not really even a good looking watch, from a company most consumers don't know or care about.

I've got a pretty pessimistic view of these things both present and future. I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary, but it's hard to see these things taking off. At the very basic, most fundamental level, it seems like it should be a watch first, a sleek, worthy device on its own, that happens to do neat stuff when paired with a phone. What that neat stuff is, exactly, is beyond me. Replying to an email or SMS is beyond reason on a 1.5 inch screen, I hope people aren't thinking of watching videos on these, and I can't think of any of good uses for something that size besides quickly checking the time.

Battery lives seem to be an afterthought on these things, though some e-ink displays may help with that.

Getting it right seems to involve: Being able to make calls and connect online itself, with no companion smartphone required. A good interface being available, which will be tricky with such a small screen, maybe voice control ala Google Glass? Simultaneously being light enough and yet having enough battery life. I'd wager a front facing camera, that actually looks at the user, would be the most appropriate. I can't see a comfortable solution to fitting in an entire decent camera module that somehow takes pictures too.

Apple seems to have hinted that it understands some of this. "Interested in wearables" and interested in "delivering a platform that has iphone like features at the right price, rather than just a cheaper iphone" are two quotes I know exist from Tim Cook. Which seem to indicate some of the above. And Apple does have a history of, while not "inventing" the hardware category, then making a hardware category useable and popular by a mass audience.

Of course Google is also rumored to be doing the whole smartwatch thing too, and they've already got experience with wearables ala Google glass. Who's interface might be useable in a smartwatch already. Point is I'm waiting for Sergey Brin or Tim Cook to walk onto a stage and hold up a watch. Remember, no one really believed in tablets or smartphones until the iphone or ipad respectively. Maybe someone, and probably Google or Apple (Sorry MS), can do the same for smartwatches.

I'm continually surprised that almost a year after getting my Pebble, no one has come out with a smartwatch that has made me even think about switching. It certainly isn't perfect, and lord knows it took them a while to get it even partially right. But it works at what it is designed to be, a supplemental screen for when you don't feel like reaching for your phone (mine sits in a coat pocket for 90% of the day), when a notification goes off.

Both this and the Samsung watch seem to be designed by engineers going "hey wouldn't it be neat if it did X?" With the obvious answer being "no", but them putting it in anyway.

Who wants to buy a watch from a company that obviously doesn't know how to design watches?

Seriously: the resizeable wrist band thing has been a solved problem for decades now. This is like having a smart phone that can't reliably make phone calls. Nobody would buy that (at least not from Qualcomm).

I want a smartwatch that is a watch as much as a smartphone is a pocket watch. In other words make the fscking thing larger. Give it a 3" 640x640 display and basically make it a wearable smartphone. Everything else will be just useless.

Are smartphones two inch across and attached to a golden chain? No. Why? Because they'd be useless this way.

I think the comment a few down from yours about being able to do phone stuff without the phone is off base. The point of a smart watch is to be a remote display.

When I get an email, I can read the subject and determine importance, maybe scan the body. Then either leave it for later, or pull out my phone or tablet and read it.SMS can be read right off the screen, and some responses issued ("lunch at 12?" "ok")The uses for e.g. biking apps are, IMO, pretty obvious. Even for navigation I should be able to mount the smartwatch on the handlebar and put my bulkier and more vulnerable phone somewhere better protected.Even triggering basic events; when using a headset, instead of pulling out the phone, dialing, and promptly putting it back in my pocket I could dial from the watch (even if it's just triggering voice command functionality).

Eventually, I wouldn't be surprised to see smart watches paired with tablets (or fablets), and phones omitted. Not for everyone, but I know an increasing group of people who carry Nexus 7s or iPad Minis everywhere, and phones are relegated to basically just being phones.

I agree with thekaj on this. The pebble seems to be the best of all of them even after all this time. Not only does it weigh half as much as this new Toq, but it works with standard watch bands, and it just gets the whole idea of being an auxiliary screen rather than being the main display. It's been tremendously useful for me in that it keeps my smartphone in my pocket until I really need to look something up, or enter some data.

If I'm just checking who is calling me, what time it is, or what that last email or text notification was I won't need to drag the 5-inch phone out of my pocket. It also has a nice, quick way to notify that person that just texted me that I'm driving and won't be able to respond for awhile. Similarly, when I'm driving, it lets me pause or skip my smart phone music blind without dragging the phone out of its spot and fiddling with it.

And if I leave my phone at home? It tells time and acts as a stop watch with no need for a phone. Plus, the Revolution watchface is just nice to look at.

I have to ask, who is really asking for smartwatches? It seems like this whole thing is a drop of fake blood into the consumer electronics' shark tank. Samsung came out waving their flag, yelling FIRST!, but nobody really seemed to care. Now there's a half-assed, ugly-displayed, mostly-responsive....wrist thing, not really even a good looking watch, from a company most consumers don't know or care about.

I've got a pretty pessimistic view of these things both present and future. I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary, but it's hard to see these things taking off. At the very basic, most fundamental level, it seems like it should be a watch first, a sleek, worthy device on its own, that happens to do neat stuff when paired with a phone. What that neat stuff is, exactly, is beyond me. Replying to an email or SMS is beyond reason on a 1.5 inch screen, I hope people aren't thinking of watching videos on these, and I can't think of any of good uses for something that size besides quickly checking the time.

Battery lives seem to be an afterthought on these things, though some e-ink displays may help with that.

What am I missing? What's the allure?

I don't get it either. Smartwatches in general seem to be a solution to a problem that no-one has.

I still fail to see a use case for a smart watch. I don't get why people are continuing to try to make smart watches happen.

My use case for Pebble: - All notifications on my wrist, /silently/. The phone is not chirping or ringing. - I glance over at my watch, either ignore it or handle it. - Caller ID and call reject on watch. - I can't miss a notification because the the wrist buzz is unmissable, unlike phone chirp or phone buzz in pocket while in a moving vehicle. - I can't miss waking up for something really important, because can't sleep through the buzz. - Nice selection of watchfaces depending on my mood or need. - Only needs charging once a week (that's a bit often, but livable). - Cheap enough for what it does.

It's a major improvement in workflow. People say 'you can take out your phone to check time or messages', but why should you? And why you should be That Guy who's always conspicuously checking his phone when you don't need to be - it's very discreet.

Now I'm not saying it's compelling enough for everyone yet, but it's a very early toe in the water. I remember before the iPad came out everyone had the same 'I just don't see any use for it - I have my PC and my phone already' reaction. Flaming arguments in the Ars comments and everywhere else about how tablets would flop because they didn't meet somebody's current use case.

A smartwatch is one of the few places I think a widescreen format (16:9 or even wider) makes sense. The wrist is only so high, but the arm is very long.

Instead of trying to shoehorn text and whatnot into a 1-2" square screen, let's move away from the "round watch face" and into the "widescreen on a wrist" phase. A 1.5" x 3" screen would be much nicer. Especially for those of us that wear our watches along the bottom of the wrist (the flat part). Maybe make the strap moveable in the horizontal to make it sit more comfortably (instead of screen centered on strap, move it to the left for wearing on the left wrist; move it to the right to wear it on the right wrist) without bumping up against the palm.

That way, you could actually put enough text onscreen to be able to read entire SMS or e-mail messages, or alerts, or alarms, or other notifications. And be able to get more information from apps like RunKeeper or Endomondo. And you'd get more surface area for sensors for things like pulse, temp, etc; or for music info; or whatever.

Stop thinking in terms of "watch" and in terms of "extra screen with sensors" and it'll be easier to designand understand uses.

IMO there is no need to make every device out there a complicated computer running a "real OS". Why some things can't stay as they are now, running simple, mostly bug-free and responsive firmware?

It doesn't have to run a "real OS". It needs to be an OS that can handle multiple wireless communication methods (bluetooth, wifi) along with have the ability to run applications (such as an email client, SMS client, all those smart phone thingies), have the ability to take user input and interpret it as well as be able to something developers can develop for while remaining secure, because it's linked directly to a phone. It's just that if you make something like that it winds up looking a lot like a real OS.

And the options are to develop something brand new to work on each such device, or take a well developed OS that already has those features and is made to run on small screens with low end hardware. The former is simply going to create a million new bugs or not have any features, at which point you might as well just buy a digital watch.

I want a smartwatch that is a watch as much as a smartphone is a pocket watch. In other words make the fscking thing larger. Give it a 3" 640x640 display and basically make it a wearable smartphone. Everything else will be just useless.

Are smartphones two inch across and attached to a golden chain? No. Why? Because they'd be useless this way.

Interesting idea. Especially if they could make it larger without much more power draw. The passive Mirasol screen could probably get larger without extra power draw so it might not need more battery. Touch panel overlay might actually be drawing more power than the display. But a widescreen should fit well on wrist.

In the full review I'd like to know how clear the mirasol display is and whether the watch really does last several days between recharges, as claimed.

Unfortunately you still have to drag the phone out of your pocket to answer a call, though it seems QC plan earphones too. At which point, might as well pack a tablet as a phone since you never need to hold it to your head. Really, that should be possible with a watch display and anyone's favorite Bluetooth earpiece (since the watch demonstrates that QC has a minimal grasp of design and fit).

Unfortunately you still have to drag the phone out of your pocket to answer a call, though it seems QC plan earphones too. At which point, might as well pack a tablet as a phone since you never need to hold it to your head. Really, that should be possible with a watch display and anyone's favorite Bluetooth earpiece (since the watch demonstrates that QC has a minimal grasp of design and fit).

Does Bluetooth natively support the use pattern where a watch would allow you to answer the phone while sending the audio to a unrelated Bluetooth headset? It seems like it should, but I guess I could imagine the case that the standard phone control protocols are set up such that the "answer phone" command needs to be issued by the same device that will receive the audio.

I have to ask, who is really asking for smartwatches? It seems like this whole thing is a drop of fake blood into the consumer electronics' shark tank. Samsung came out waving their flag, yelling FIRST!, but nobody really seemed to care. Now there's a half-assed, ugly-displayed, mostly-responsive....wrist thing, not really even a good looking watch, from a company most consumers don't know or care about.

I've got a pretty pessimistic view of these things both present and future. I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary, but it's hard to see these things taking off. At the very basic, most fundamental level, it seems like it should be a watch first, a sleek, worthy device on its own, that happens to do neat stuff when paired with a phone. What that neat stuff is, exactly, is beyond me. Replying to an email or SMS is beyond reason on a 1.5 inch screen, I hope people aren't thinking of watching videos on these, and I can't think of any of good uses for something that size besides quickly checking the time.

Battery lives seem to be an afterthought on these things, though some e-ink displays may help with that.

What am I missing? What's the allure?

I had a Timex watch that synced to MS Outlook and held my appointments and contacts, among other features. It was quite useful - sort of a mini-PDA - and worked stand-alone. Why they call these new things "smart" watches when they don't work stand-alone is beyond me. They're really fancy accessories for your phone. I love the Samsung ad where the person gets a call, sees the call on the phone, then puts the phone down and answers the call on their watch. WTF? They think that's a real use case?

I want a smartwatch that is a watch as much as a smartphone is a pocket watch. In other words make the fscking thing larger. Give it a 3" 640x640 display and basically make it a wearable smartphone. Everything else will be just useless.

Are smartphones two inch across and attached to a golden chain? No. Why? Because they'd be useless this way.

You actually have a good point there. Why doesn't someone come out with a smart pocket watch? It could be fashionable and the slightly larger screen would make it much more useful. It could have enough battery and screen to run bluetooth headphones, show a map, or a variety of other tasks. (actually the size reminds me of the Palm Veer)

I saw that display and I thought, "Wow, it reminds me of the LCDs on old watches."

No, no. Not LCD of the 21st century. I mean the old LCD clock displays that would display the numbers 0 through 9 on four fields. There's just something decidedly old school about the look of that screen.

Edit: In my opinion, smart watches will happen once someone figures out how to design them to look like jewelry, not electronics. Because that's almost what watches are nowadays - they're shiny, they're bold, they're meant to stand out and look good with a suit, or really, with anything you have to wear. The "sporty" watch just isn't a thing right now (and I don't recall that being the case for at least the past 20 years).

Smart watches would be a good way to realize Star Trek style communicators. You don't really want to dial a phone anyway, you just want to tap it and say "Jim, how are we doing?" and the phone+network connects you with Jim based on the voice cue.

another Pebble fan here. To the doubters, the Pebble is cheaper than the other watches, needs only infrequent charging, uses standard wristwatch straps, and has relatively simple functions--it permits silent rings/notifications, it shows caller ID, texts, and important alerts (this does NOT include email for me), and lastly it even controls my music. Great for winter, when the phone stays inside the coat. Great for when the phone is on the dresser and I'm in the shower or cooking. All sorts of great. I'm a big fan of this watch.

And this is in what is clearly a geeky early product.

I like the Samsung watches' metal highlights. I like the idea of inductive charging (though my FAVORITE watch charging solution is the Nike GPS watch--it's full size USB. It means a proprietary USB watchband, but I can charge it anywhere! Look ma, no cables or docks!

I can't help but think that google and apple are going to wipe the floor with these contenders though. Qualcomm?? really? do they even have any other consumer electronic stuff out on the market? It's like Monsanto brand snack food, or BASF produced television shows (rather than the VHS tapes). Exxon automobiles, or Western Digital smart phones.